Stieglitz Spins in His Grave

First off, thanks to Mike Johnston for mentioning my site on his. Since then people have been arriving here from all over the world and I'm just inexperienced enough in blogging to think that that's pretty nifty.

Now, something that Mike's mention seems to have brought out is the tired old debate regarding whether 'tis nobler to leave the photograph alone, or to manipulate it to one's heart's content in search of the picture one had in mind at the time of taking it. I'd have thought this was long dead - hence the Stieglitz reference - but apparently not.

The notion that a photograph is an untouchable record of reality is, um, inaccurate. It isn't. Never was. Face it, for the first hundred years or so, they were all in black and white. And "fuzzy" was the ideal, not "sharp". Once colour came along, reality remained just as far away. Negative film or slide? Slow emulsion or fast? Which brand? Who did the printing? What, no filters on the camera? How's the tonal range in the photo compare to reality? How about the colour depth?

Of course, "reality" doesn't exist either. Is the world more real when I've got my glasses on, or off? It sure looks different in each of those conditions. Are glasses a manipulation of reality? As I mentioned, I'm a bit colour blind - is my world less real than everyone else's? After all, I'm only considered colour blind because I see a narrower portion of the spectrum than most people. And none of us sees in the ultraviolet the way bees do. Who's world is more real?

So, here's the answer to the debate. Do what you like - they're your photos and it's your reality. Do you like the way your picture looks? Congratulations, you did the right thing(s). Hate it? Oops, you did something wrong.